IN THE CONSUMER DISPUTES REDRESSAL COMMISSION, KOTTAYAM
Dated, the 28th day of October, 2022
Present: Sri. Manulal V.S. President
Smt. Bindhu R. Member
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
C C No. 191/2019 (Filed on 07-11-2019)
Petitioner : Mrs. Bhasura,
Panathara House,
Arpookara,
Kottayam - 686008.
(Adv. Raju Abraham)
Vs.
Opposite parties : (1) Mahindra and Mahindra Co. Ltd.
Gate Way Buildings,
Appollo Bundr, Mumbai – 400039
Rep. by its CEO.
(Adv. Saji Mathew, Adv. Denu Joseph,
Adv. George Itty and Adv. Bibin Babu)
(2) Mahnidra and Mahindra,
Financial Service Ltd.
4th Floor, Noel House,
Thrikkakara, Kakanadu,
Cochin, Rep. by its Manager.
(Adv. Dr. Rejimon V.T.)
O R D E R
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member
The case is filed under Section 12 of the Consumer Protection Act, 1986.
The brief of the compliant is as follow.
The complainant had purchased a Mahindra Jeeto Mini Van LXD, D+4 on 08-05-2019 from T.V. Sundaram Iyyengar and Sons Pvt. Ltd. Kottayam, the authorized agent of the first opposite party. The complainant paid a down payment of Rs.50,000/- and availed a loan from the second opposite party for the rest of the amount. The monthly EMI for the loan is Rs.9,400/-.
The authorized agent of the first opposite party TVS Kottayam has already closed. The vehicle has a warranty of 60,000 kilometers. The complainant approached authorized showroom at Thiruvalla for service and they had informed that they could complete the work only after two months from the date of delivery of the vehicle. The warranty would not be provided if the service of the vehicle was done in any other showroom. The petitioner is not able to do the service of the vehicle properly and could not use the vehicle since it exceeds the 5000 km service. The petitioner had paid monthly EMI without default till September. Now the second opposite party is demanding the dues of the said vehicle. The petitioner is not in a position to pay the monthly instalment due to the deficiency of the 1st opposite party, who had no service centre at Kottayam District.
The engine of the vehicle will be damaged if it is running, moreover the vehicle had some inherent defects which were the manufacturing defects. The reasons for two months delay in repairing submitted by the service provider at Thiruvalla under warranty period is deficiency of service from the part of the opposite parties. The complaint is filed for an order directing the 1st opposite party to replace the defective vehicle or to refund the entire amount paid along with 18% interest and with a compensation of Rs.1,00,000/- for the mental agony, pain and sufferings.
On admission of the complaint, copy of the complaint was duly served to the opposite parties. The opposite parties appeared and filed their version.
As per the version of the first opposite party, the complainant had purchased the vehicle from its dealer M/s. T.V. Sundaram Iyyengar and Sons. The TVS is a dealer and not an agent of the first opposite party. This opposite party had no direct knowledge about the loan transactions of the vehicle. The complainant had to prove that all the scheduled services and maintenances were carried out properly. No date is mentioned regarding the alleged compliant of the vehicle. The vehicle never reported for any periodic service from the date of purchase. M/s. TVS had withdrawn from the dealership of Mahindra and Mahindra Ltd. from June 2019 regarding the LMV and three wheelers and this opposite party had aligned secondary and territory network to support the existing customers. This opposite party thereafter appointed M/s. B.H. Motors as its dealer and the dealership is operational. This opposite party is supporting all existing customers. The complainant had to prove the allegation that the complainant approached the authorized showroom at Thiruvalla for service and they have informed that they can complete the work only after 2 months from the date on which the vehicle is entrusted. There is no delay in service of the vehicle at Thiruvalla or any other dealer or service centre of the opposite party. There is no deficiency of service on the part of the opposite party. The terms and conditions of warranty and warranty coverage is mentioned in the owner’s manual. The complainant is not entitled to claim replacement of the vehicle or refund of the price as compensation. The complainant have not produced any material evidence to show that the vehicle is having some inherent defects. No document is adduced to show that the vehicle is having manufacturing defect. In the absence of any such evidence the complaint is liable to be dismissed.
The second opposite party filed a separate version. As per the version of the second opposite party the complainant had availed a loan from the second opposite party for an amount of Rs.3,57,618/- as per loan agreement number 6119648 dated 30-03-2019. The financial charges were 1,44,172/-. The complainant had agreed to pay Rs.5,01,790/- in 54 instalments. An amount of Rs.9,430/- to be paid on 15th of every month till 15-09-2023. But the complainant committed defect in paying the amount. There is no deficiency of service or unfair trade practice alleged against this opposite party.
Complainant filed proof affidavit and marked documents as Exts1A1 to A4. The first opposite party filed proof affidavit and marked documents as Ext.B1.
On the basis of the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant, version of the opposite parties and evidence adduced, we would like to consider the following points.
- Whether there is unfair trade practice or deficiency in service on the part of the opposite parties?
- If so, what are the reliefs and costs?
Point 1 and 2
Ongoing through the complaint, proof affidavit of the complainant and evidence adduced it is clear that the complainant had purchased a Mahindra Jeeto Mini Van from the Dealer TVS Sundaram Iyyengar and sons Pvt Ltd Kottayam on 08.05.2019 for an amount of Rs.351350/-.The Vehicle was registered in Number.KL.05.A4.1646 with RTO Kottayam.
The complainant had availed Vehicle Loan from the Second opposite party for an amount of Rs.357618/-.The loan is to be repaid in 54 monthly installments with an EMI of Rs.9430/-.
The first opposite party admits that their Dealer at Kottayam M/S TVS had
withdrawn from the dealership from June 2019 regarding the LMV and Three-wheelers. Even though the First opposite party claimed that they had arranged secondary and territory network for the support of the existing customers, they failed to produce any evidence to show that this matter had been intimated to the Complainant, who is an existing customer.
It is clear that the complainant was not able to use the vehicle for making his daily bread since the service of the vehicle was not done in time by the authorized dealer of the first opposite party at Kottayam. Moreover Ext.B1 warranty policy clearly states that warranty will not be provided if the repair work of the vehicle was done outside an authorized Mahindra service station. This caused much mental agony and financial liabilities to the complainant as he was not able to remit the monthly EMIs to the second opposite party. The first opposite party is liable to compensate the complainant for this mental agony and sufferings.
Even though the complainant alleges inherent manufacturing defect for the vehicle no expert evidence is adduced to prove the manufacturing defect. From the above findings it is evident that the act of the opposite parties in not intimating the alternate arrangements made for the support of the existing customers to the complainant when the dealership at Kottayam was closed and not rendering proper and timely service to the vehicle of the complainant amounts to deficiency in service on their part.
On the basis of the above discussed evidence we allow the complainant and pass the following orders.
- The first opposite party is directed to give Rs.50, 000/- as compensation for the mental agony and sufferings to the complainant with cost Rs.3000/-
The order shall be complied within 30 days from the date of receipt of this order, failing which the amounts will carry 9% interest per annum from the date of this order till realization.
Pronounced in the Open Commission on this the 28th day of October, 2022
Sri. K.M. Anto, Member Sd/-
Sri. Manulal V.S. President Sd/-
Smt. Bindhu R. Member Sd/-
Appendix
Exhibits marked from the side of complainant
A1 – Copy of certificate of registration (KL05AU1646)
A2 – Copy of invoice for Rs.3,51,350/- issued by TV Sundaram Iyengar &Sons
A3 – Copy of motor insurance certificate cum policy schedule
A4 – Copy of permit in respect of contract carriage permit
Exhibits marked from the side of opposite party
B1 – True copy of relevant pages of warranty policy
By Order
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar
